( 2026:JHHC:16469 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 273 of 2026 Sikandar Murmu, aged about 57 years, Son of Late Baijun Murmu, resident of Village- Jadupur, P.O. – Daldali, P.S.- Pakur Malpahari (O.P.), District- Pakur, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Office at DGP Headquarter, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O. & P.S.- Pakur, District- Pakur. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Pakur, P.O. & P.S.- Pakur, District- Pakur. 5. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pakur, P.O. & P.S.- Pakur, District- Pakur. 6. The Officer In-Charge, Pakur, Malpahari (O.P.) P.S., P.O.- Malpahari, District- Pakur. 7. Suniram Murmu, son of Late Som Murmu, 8. Wakil Murmu, son of Babulal Murmu, 9. Thakur Murmu, son of Late Manjhi Murmu, 10. Babulal Murmu, son of Late Manjhi Murmu, 11. Lakhiram Murmu, son of Late Manjhi Murmu & Ten other unknown persons, All are resident of Village- Jadupur, P.O.- Daldali, P.S.- Pakur Malpahari (O.P.), District- Pakur, Jharkhand. … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate For the State : A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I --- Order No. 02/ Dated: 9th June, 2026 Heard Mr. Md. Yasir Arafat, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 6 to forthwith register an FIR against the accused persons and thereafter conduct a fair, impartial and time-bound investigation. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to compensate the loss suffered by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of the illegal harvesting and removal of paddy crops by the private respondents. 3. In the context of the aforementioned prayer, reference is made to the case of “Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & others” reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police his first remedy is to ( 2026:JHHC:16469 ) 2 approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies? 27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” 4. In view of the fact that the petitioner has an alternative remedy, this writ application accordingly stands disposed of. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 9th June, 2026 Vedanti/- Uploaded on 10th June, 2026